Talk:Toyota Prius/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Delete durability section?

The only references in this section are Consumer Affairs.com tagged as dubious. On the other hand, Consumer Reports' surveys indicate the highest level of reliability ratings. Unless we have som non-dubious sources for this section, it should go or be replaced by something with more comprehensive references. There are definitely failures and it is not hard to find many anecdotal claims, but something reliable is needed. The traction control "failure" is not even a failure as it is designed to operate that way--reminiscent of complaints about ABS in the early days. Red Harvest (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Red Harvest (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability citations

The noteworthy point about the Prius is despite the complexity and novelty of two connected power trains, it's one of the most reliable cars on the road.

• Consumer Reports' findings may not be viewable without a subscription. The Prius reliability page has "New Car Prediction: Much better than average". They also have an overall reliability page for different car categories; it's currently broken, but last time it worked the Prius was at the top of its segment and 84% more reliable than its competitors.

• TrueDelta's car reliability results have the Prius pegged at "Fewest" on their graph of "Repair Trips per Year (per 100 vehicles)" for every year for which they have data (2004-2008). Other cars are also pegged at "Fewest".

• JD Powers 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study in Compact Car segment awards the 2006 Toyota Prius (this is noted in the Awards section).

I wouldn't dare step into the minefield of this page and try to add this, but the supporting evidence is there. Cheers. -- Skierpage (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CO2 Claims section (in Controversy) POV'ish?

What is the point of this section? There is brief mention of how the vehicle compares (without actual values presented for the emissions), but the remainder of the section is about advertising. Do the old advertising claims disputes rise to a level of relevance worthy of inclusion and as a section? In reading it all I find are disputes about what comparison basis was used, not that the CO2 emissions for the car are incorrectly stated--the section title is unintentionally misleading in this regard. The final sentence is unreferenced and goes nowhere since the particular case was dismissed. Red Harvest (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these cases on advertising claims were resolved years ago, not really relevant anymore, and the first paragraph isn't a controversy.Nerfer (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done an initial clean up but left the section for now. Modified title for clarity, deleted dismissed complaint, requested citation for the New Zealand part. I didn't delete the first sentence you mentioned, but it really doesn't look necessary to me either. Provides a bit of background...but since we are debating whether or not the whole section should go...and it isn't really necessary for the later statements. Okay, talked myself into it, I'll strike it as well. Red Harvest (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated the UK official data sentence, but into the "Fuel consumption" section (which I renamed to "Fuel consumption and CO2 emission"), alongside the other "ofiicial" data. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, the official CO₂ emission data is used to set various motoring taxes, charges and fees. -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion not needed any more

Hi, I think you guys are working very well again, so I'll leave you to it. Just remember to be civil and to keep three principles in mind WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Bye! :-)
Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Plug-in socket

Has anybody else noticed that odd covered hole at the front of the Prius? Is that for retro-fitting the plug-in socket later or is it something else? If it is in fact a plug-in socket, should it be included in the article? Viet|Pham (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a plug socket, I Believe it is for when the vehicle in transit (inside ship, train, tow truck..ETC) it can be harnesed down Speer320 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and so should that be included in the article? Viet|Pham (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Independant Comparison

Edmunds compared the Prius to the Fit. I edited out the extra information about the Fit's price. That not needed in a Prius article and not neutral POV. Also adding an automatic and alloy wheels to the Fit increases the price $1960, both standard on the Prius. The Prius is also much larger in dimensions etc. Try and keep the article relevant. Also adding that the Fit doesn't include regenerative braking or is powered by a conventional motor is irrelevant.

A person could argue the Prius justifies the additional price of a hybrid powertrain because it offers better fuel economy and larger dimensions and does better in safety tests, that'd be POV in favor the Prius also irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.229.151 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored the facts about lack of regenerative brakes and the power source to keep this new paragraph consistent with other paragraphs in this sub-section. When comparisons were added in the past, editors thought it necessary to describe such factors, which may help excuse poorer fuel-efficiency performance. -- de Facto (talk). 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

hyphen use

Someone has been putting hyphens between "1.8 liter", as in "1.8-liter". Is there a reason for this? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Repair Costs

I wondered about this paragraph:

Prius owners for years have wondered about systematic higher costs for Prius repairs. 
While the cars are extremely reliable, owners end up paying more for repairs when they do
have to be made.  

Repairs on the Prius cost more than four cars of a similar size. To be precise, 8.4% more. 

The word "four" in the last sentence I have corrected to "for", assuming that was intended. The original text sounds, as if repair costs were four times higher which I assume is nonsense. And what is the real cost difference? If the cars are "extremely" reliable, how many percent less repairs does that mean, minus 10% or minus 50%? Added up, that would mean clearly less cost, not more, wouldn´t it?

In addition: In my country, germany, Toyota gives a warranty for all hybrid components, including the battery, of eight years up to 160 000 km. How much warranty in the UK?

We should study the indicated references to find out --Hans W (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pricing

Pricing announced:

• http://priuschat.com/news/2010-pricing-available-starts-21k-goes-31770-with-options
• http://www.detnews.com/article/20090421/AUTO01/904210411/1148/Prius+pricing+to+start+at+$21+000

Still waiting details of what is in the base, $21K, versus the popular model, $22K. Did someone say the base model doesn't include cruise control?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Prius fooling emission and fuel consumption tests

Recently the Prius have received allot of media attention, and I couldn't understand how it's engine polluted and consumed significantly less than smaller engines.

So I started digging:

Regarding CO2 emissions: CO2 emissions is tested on a dynamometer EU directive relating to CO2 emission The test is preformed at various speeds EU directive where Annex III, Appendix 1 describes test cycle, and since the Prius will turn it's engine off during the low-speed phases the engine will not produce any CO2 during these phases effectively bringing the average down.

Fuel consumption is calculated during a similar test EU directive relating to fuel consumption tests, so again will the introduction of battery drive during low speeds bring the average consumption down.

I find this very interesting, but I am unsure if it belongs in the article. Arcatuseon (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is that fooling? The EPA determines the method for testing vehicles and I doubt anyone is being fooled. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Having uncovered the links, the original comment appears to be about the European tests. I don't think the U.S. EPA determine the methods for testing used there. -- de Facto (talk). 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the details of how the tests are applied to Hybrids (either the European or the U.S.), but if it is not stipulated that the battery must have the same level of charge at the end of testing as it had at the beginning, then the results may well be misleading - they will not take account of the battery energy consumed. However, if it is stipulated that any battery power consumed must be replenished by use of the gas engine before the test ends, then the results will give a fair comparison with regular gas-powered cars. Does anybody know which way it actually is? -- de Facto (talk). 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Weaknesses of greener cars

Weaknesses of greener cars:

1. More efficient cars have slower top speed.
2. More efficient cars have less legroom and headroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Split

I vote no, few people click on repeated links and there have only been 3 generations of the Prius. Like all the other split automotive articles, for instance BMW 5-series, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz E-class page viewership will drop into a small fraction and editors will lose interest in editing and maintaining articles viewed by small numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support splitting into an article for each generation, keeping this as an overwiew article. Much of the content of this article, although outside of the specific generation sub-sections, /is/ specific to a single generation. The current article is over long and it is not clear which of the content applies to the current generation, and which to previous ones. -- de Facto (talk). 12:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support.   Article is long already. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Against. Even though the article is too long, and as DeFacto correctly pointed out, info is mixed for several generations, I rather want to see a proposal on how the article will be divided. For example, the basic information for each gen could be kept here (as most auto articles are structured at Wiki), but creating a new articles on specific related topics such us "Prius history", another "Environmental performance...", etc. So it must be clear how the article is going to be split, before simply deciding to split.--Mariordo (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Against. The template currently added to the article proposes replacement by a WP:disambiguation page, which is only appropriate for completely separate things that happen to have the same name. WP policy for long articles is to use WP:Summary style, maintaining a shorter main article and using subarticles for details.

The main division in the article is not between generations, but between facts about the car itself vs. its role in media and politics. Interestingly deFacto opposed that kind of split earlier and even claimed it was illegal, but is now supporting a split by generations. From earlier on this page:

Splitting-off the 'Controversies' section would be to create a point of view fork, and would violate the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. -- de Facto(talk). 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

--JWB (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm supporting the creation of a new article for each generation, as is common for other car articles, with the content specific only to that generation going there. This article would remain to provide an overview of the line, and to contain the content which is general to all Priuses. I'm certainly not supporting the idea of simply splitting out the controversies - and I don't think that has been proposed. -- de Facto (talk). 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage is at least as good a candidate for moving lengthy details to subarticle(s). There are abundant examples of the form Hurricane Katrina, subarticle Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina. --JWB (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Against. I think that if this page was split into 4 (one for each model), the NHW10 and NHW11 model pages would be stubs or little more than. PLUS: I agree with the first post by 69.65.224.246. --Pineapple fez

Result I am removing the split to disambiguation tag. --JWB (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Braking

Toyota Prius has much shorter braking distance than Lincoln Town Car, Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Marquis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is changing the Lincoln Town Car‎ article. They seem to have not been able to read the citation for the sentence they are altering. The verified reference states: Braking short and stable for a heavyweight... In summary, the big Lincoln has been rated well in its category. Moreover, it is rather pointless to compare the Lincoln (and the other full-sized sedans) with the small Prius because they are in dramatically different target markets and vehicle classifications. Similarly, there are many vehicles that can stop in less distance than a Prius. It would not help to describe the Prius' braking as poor, simply because any Ferrari or Porsche has vastly better braking performance much that of the Toyota. — Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Prius can stop in less distance than the any other vehicles, because Prius has front wheel drive, full hybrid and Atkinson cycle engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Noise from solar ventilation?

How much noise does the solar powered ventilation system create as heard from the outside? I'm concerned with the precedent of a car that is on when it is off. Wnt (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a ventilation fan, not a jet engine :) CyberDragon777 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It only powers the internal fan, I can't hear mine externally Scooterpenrose (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive

This discussion page needs to be archived. Jørgen88 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary section

There is already a criticism section, most of which has been debunked in the page already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.229.151 (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the Prius as a niche car makes little sense as the Prius is currently the only car that exists in its class. It also has sold over 1 millions units, a Corvette or and E63 AMG is a niche car not the Prius.

Also comparing smaller manual city cars to the Prius is not a valid comparison much less so when the Prius mileage figure is based on an EPA rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.229.151 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC) The Prius is classified a mid-size in the US, a city are is below a sub-compact.

Also stating the Prius is delaying other technology is false. Any company that can introduce a new technology will stop at no lengths to do so, much like the Prius introduced a new technology. Also this new technology such as fuel cells is over 20 years away regardless of whether the Prius exists or not. Electric vehicles have passed due to too many compromises but the electric motors, batteries, etc which hybrids advance can change that.

You're wrong the corvette is not a niche defining car it belongs to a niche established mostly by european car makers, It is the one commonly referred as the "Hyper-Car" niche, go and read about Ferrari Daytona and Lamborghini Miura for the defining cars (pioneers) of that market niche. And No, the prius is not the only one car of its class, go to a Honda dealer and you'll find out why. The prius, having been the pioneer of its class and market share is a niche market defining car. I have the sensation that you don't get what a niche is; In simple words is the portion of the market that provides an specific type of products to a specific type of person, every product, even mainstream, are defined by its market niche; niche doesn't mean exclusive.

You certainly have a huge point on the comparison with smaller city cars, but that doesn't stop for its criticism and as criticism it was stated, and having taken into consideration that the article itself has a huge portion devoted to the criticism then some of that has to go on the lead paragraph, because a lead paragraph is intended to serve as a summary of the article. Plus if the prius is aimed to be advertised as the greenest car then it has to be compared to the other products that aim at that very same objective. And the Prius is a mid-sized car not because that layout better satisfies the needs of transportation with high fuel efficiency but because it has to be like that (the long boot at the back, so more or less a saloon or sedan layout) to compensate for the weight of its two full engines at the front.

About the more contaminant production phase, you have to recognize that it is the reality, the production of these cars are being held in plants all over the world that are on charge with just specific portion of the development and assembly of a specific given set of parts and they have to be sent all over the world for the car's final assembly. It is so important that it has even been acknowledged by Toyota and therefore centralized production plants are planned to be run in the US from 2010 onwards but until that, the production phase of the Toyota Prius is more contaminant than, presumably, a Porsche Cayman, leave alone a Volkswagen Polo Blue Motion.

About the Prius gaining popularity and making rival car makers wanting to collect the money from that niche market as well thus not fully concentrating on research on solar energy devices, Regenerative energy devices (like KERS), you are right it's a Point of View style of writing that it is banned on wikipedia, it could be added as a citation but with the lack of references it has to be avoided to do such claims until some verifiable source is available.

Let me know your thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.153.99 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, no response, deleted content will be added and modified, discuss before changing.

I still do not believe that paragraph should be added to the main heading.

"The Toyota Prius is a niche market defining car, which is colloquially referred as a green car for being more fuel efficient and less contaminant (in several ways) than standard road cars found in the US."

I never stated the Corvette is a niche defining car and you're right the Corvette is not a niche defining car, however it is a niche car as it sells to a specialized market or niche, the high performance sports car niche (not an ultra performance low volume exotic niche). Consequently, the Corvette is a niche car. I can understand saying the Prius belongs to the green car niche, however the Prius does not by any means define the green car niche. The Prius also sells in high volumes, referring to it as a niche car is arguably false making it especially inappropriate in heading section. Also what's the point of adding, "colloquially referred to" ? As far as the Honda Insight it hasn't even been on sale for a month in Japan, and no I cannot walk into any dealer outside Japan and drive home in an Insight.

"Nevertheless the car, and the niche itself, are not short on detractors who cite superior fuel efficiency from current smaller city European diesel cars[4] (75-85 MPG compared to 45 MPG of the Prius)."

The heading should be a place for factual information not alleged and unproven criticism. Since when exactly was the Prius ever advertised as the greenest car on the market? It's advertised as a green car. If the Prius is advertised as delivering better fuel economy than anything else in the United States that's because Toyota cannot advertise any non-EPA fuel estimates by law which both governmental and magazine data confirm it is.

I don't live in Europe but the vehicles you compared Prius to are likely advertised as being light on fuel, in the same way gasoline powered econoboxes in the US are advertised for their fuel economy not for environmental friendless. Does Toyota advertise the Prius as most fuel efficient car anywhere in Europe? You also include a 45 mpg figure for the Prius w/o any source information, where is this figure being derived from? You do include fuel economy figures for significantly smaller manual powered diesel cars from msn autos, and are those official UK governmental figures? Unofficial data belongs in the independent tested data section. In the heading the Prius is listed as the #6 CO2 producer in the UK why add redundant but unofficial data to the heading?

You claim the Prius is advertised as begin the greenest car on market. Care to prove this? In terms of factual data CARB already rates the Prius as one of the cleanest if not the cleanest vehicle on American roads sold to the general public today. The only passenger vehicle diesels available in the US all use completely new engines built by the most respected diesel engine manufactures (VW, BMW, MB) and even they only meet the minimum emission requirements for sale. And why are those engines completely new, becuase the previous versions were banned from sale due to poor emissions. So exactly how are diesels green, based on less CO2 a "greenhouse gas" which is inherent benefit to using less fuel. Also a fairer comparison would be to compare the compact Jetta TDI to the midsize Prius which offers similar acceleration and the Prius beats it soundly in fuel economy and emissions.

The latest Prius does actually use solar panels. How does the Prius stop solar panel research? There are plenty of universities and companies experimenting with small solar powered cars. Furthermore sunlight only has so much energy, not enough to power any car that would sell in volume. If BMW KERS actually works then BMW will rush it into market to set a new standard, not pay GM to design a hybrid system for them.

"With two full sized engines, elevated production costs are also criticized due to elevated usage of raw materials that alongside with non centralized production plants[5], results in a great number of parts sent over international flights (with the CO2 emissions it implies), allegedly resulting in a more contaminating production phase than average vehicles;"

If the Prius does uses more raw materials in construction then it'd weigh more wouldn't it? It actually weighs less than other midsize vehicles, that's because the Prius uses a smaller gasoline engine compared to a conventional car and a smaller electric motor compared to an electric only car. In other words raw material in terms of mass are the same. Unless you can prove the Prius contaminates more because of its dual engines then again I'd say the argument is questionable and again not to be included in the heading

Exactly what do you mean by international flights? It does take diesel to ship, freight, or truck components around, except Toyota pays for that in transportation costs. If this cost were truly high then the Prius wouldn't cost $22,000, the same price as other midsize cars. You also say Toyota is fixing this with centralized plants with what for your source? Toyota adding a plant in Miss to build the Prius in the US? That has nothing to do with Toyota trying to make the Prius more environmentally friendly rather build a car where it is primarily sold before there is a public backlash.

Most of the paragraph you added is based largely on opinion and original research. It has no place here in the heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.229.151 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, discuss before changing, don't just try to fight with cheer volume of words rather than specifically giving your reasons.

First at all, niche. Milk is got its niche too, didn't you know? despite being sold in huge quantities it's got its niche; that is: people who buy it: people wanting to supply their calcium needs (who are above 1 year old and who can tolerate lactose, how do you sell it: i.e in a bottle,... etc. If you sell a billion units of your product you still have a niche, that is there is no product without a niche (i.e mainstream). Therefore if the Prius is the pioneer of its portion of market (hybrid cars built for better fosil fuel efficiency) then it is the defining car even when it sells millions of units.

referring to not short on detractors who cite superior fuel efficiency from current smaller city European diesel cars[4] (75-85 MPG compared to 45 MPG of the Prius). The cited figures are the ones officially published by the automakers themselves. If something is a given way but you don't have official sources to prove it then it doesn't mean it has to be deleted in the wikipedia article, it means the missing reference has to be added. (for you, only the official government reference would do, when is found it can be specified but the sentence has to remain). People compare prius to the small diesel cars, sorry; You say it should be fairer to compare it to the Jetta, well it has, in the US, although those cars belong to totally different market portions. In fact the only one car the Prius should be compared to should be the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (that even shares the same looks) but that doesn't the Prius being compared (by automotive journalists, car enthusiasts, other car makers) to every single car that claims fuel efficiency over speed performance. Therefore It can not be deleted, the references can.

referring to The prius using solar panels. That's not a reality right now, it is a plan for 2010.

referring to With two full sized engines, elevated production costs are also criticized due to elevated usage of raw materials that alongside with non centralized production plants[5], results in a great number of parts sent over international flights (with the CO2 emissions it implies), allegedly resulting in a more contaminating production phase than average vehicles;:

The raw materials thing can be very disputable, but weight alone is not the indicator of how much in raw materials has been used, There are more raw materials used in a F1 car that weights 600 kg than in a 2 ton SUV; But since it is unsourced then you have the reason it has to be deleted.

About the non-centralized production plants, it is a fact already made public, I added a (dumb) reference to that true fact, and it cannot be denied with the price tag (i.e 1st generation ps3 production costs were about 800 and it was sold for 600). If the petrol engine is built in a part of the world, the electric motor in another, the batteries in another, the chasis in another, it is assembled in another, and then it is finally sold in another part of the world then it means the parts have to be sent in cargo ships all over the world in overseas cargo flights, which means more CO2 emissions at high altitude (which means higher environmental damage). Therefore Raw materials thing has to be deleted; The non-centralized production plants can not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.216.74 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Diesel fuel has more CO2 emission to fuel consumption because diesel fuel has higher energy density. Diesel vehicles have less CO2 emission because diesel vehicles have much less fuel consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1) there are not two full sized engines in the Prius. The modest engine and electric motor together provide adequate acceleration, but separately would not. 2) most parts are sent by ground or ship, very few would be by air because of the expense, 3) this is no different than the construction of any other car, other than a few extra components being involved, but then again there is no transaxle and the engine is small. 4) hybrids sell about 2.5% of the U.S. market, the Prius is about half of that. There are more Prius sold in the U.S. than all of Volvo or all of Subaru. There was a time when it could be called a niche car, but that ship has long since sailed. Nerfer (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallest?

Prius is the smallest hybrid car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not even close to reality. Insight I and II, HCH are all smaller in the U.S. market, I'm not going to research other markets. By interior volume the Prius is classified a midsize car, not a compact (check out rear legroom stats compared to Corolla or Taurus for instance). Nerfer (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid is safer

Prius is the safest vehicle in the world, because Prius has lower top speed (only 110mph) and better braking performance (much shorter braking distance) due to front wheel drive full hybrid system.
front wheel drive + full hybrid + smaller size = braking short (better braking performance)
front wheel drive + full hybrid + Atkinson cycle engine = slower top speed 220.210.152.57 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I challenge all of your assumptions.

• Front wheel drive does not make the braking distance shorter.
• Being a full (or partial) hybrid does not make the braking distance shorter. But regenerative braking does.
• Being smaller does not make the braking distance shorter. But being lighter does.
• Front wheel drive does not make the top speed slower. But it does limit acceleration due to less driving wheel grip due to rearward weight transfer.
• Being a full (or partial) hybrid does not make the top speed slower. Hybrids can be optimised for intercity driving at higher speeds than the current crop of inner city vehicles. Hybrids can also be optimised for gut wrenching acceleration at the expense of economy. But I grant that most hybrids on the market are optimised for inner city economy travel which usually means optimised for 40-80km/hr and very little power above that.
• Atkinson cycle engines do not make the top speed slower. Again, it can be optimised for any particular speed the manufacturer wants. But again, I grant that the current market has optimised them for inner city economy travel.  Stepho  (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pruis is safer because it will never, ever be bought by boy racers :) Seriously, the braking on a dry road is awesome. The regeneration acts like traction control - the car does have ABS but the only time it will engage is if you go over a bump and the front wheels leave the surface - this causes the regen to disengage (as a safety measure?) and it's just you and the ABS out there. How do I know? I've driven 85K miles in my NHW11. Shannock9 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

3rd vs 4th Generation

This article shows all 4 generations of Prius (NHW10, NHW11, NHW20, ZVW30) - but uses the words "3rd generation" in discussions about the 2010 (ZVW30) model. I think this is due to countries such as Australia and US only getting the NHW11 first - thus the ZVW30 is the 3rd generation in that country.

The article needs to be consistent cross reference internally - thus it should be changed to accurately point to 4th generation. I know though, that even Toyota call the 4th gen, the 3rd gen - which is even more misleading, but again that is due to country.

Scooterpenrose (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why calling cars by generation is confusing. The NHW10 and NHW11 are really the same generation - with the NHW11 being an update to the HNW10 as evidenced by the first '1' in both model codes and the general similarity of the vehicles. But much of the media separated them into 2 generations. It gets more confusing when different countries started at different times.Elbilen.dk Each country thinks that the first model in THEIR country is the first generation. Since the media in different countries call the generations differently than what Toyota call them, I propose that we remove the 'first', 'second', etc generation titles.  Stepho  (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.   :0)   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. I think it's generally accepted that NHW10 is the first generation (NHW11 is an improvement based on NHW10 for higher power partly because of the U.S. market); NHW20 is the second generation and ZVW30 is the third generation. North wiki (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sad to say, there is no consensus. Some countries called the NHW11 the second generation (from memory, I think the US did this) while others called the NHW20 the second. If you look through the early history of this article you can see the NHW11 was listed here on WP as the second generation. Even if we sort through it all and put the generations the same way that Toyota HQ thinks of it (eg 10+11 = first, 20 = second, etc), then readers in the US will get confused because we say first gen while the US magazines are saying second gen. Better to just leave it as the model code (NHW10/11/20 etc). Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Top speed

Prius gets slower top speed due to full hybrid and front wheel drive system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. it is electronically limited to a top speed about 107 mph. (citation needed, I admit, but it's true) Nerfer (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Same limitation in the UK. Also you cannot drive it 107 mph for more than about 5 mins - the ICE doesn't produce that much power so the battery gets depeleted and the car slows to about 90. OTOH when not depleted the battery power kicks in instantly (no delay changing down or winding up a torque converter) so starting, passing or merging is as responsive as a motorcycle. Shannock9 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As responsive as a motorcycle which would presumably have a much better power to weight ratio? Shurely shome mishtake? Even small motorcycles appear to be more responsive than most cars on the road, until they get near top speed.85.158.138.19 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Table: Comparison of models

Before the adoption of SAE J1349 standard, I don't think there're figures for combined power available for NHW10 and NHW11. I suggest to amend accordingly. North wiki (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, the combined power is not [unless in such case that the peak power of ICE is exactly at the same rpm as that of electric motor(s)] the simple sum of the power of ICE and electric motor. North wiki (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the HSD gearbox allows the two motors to spin at different rpm.  Stepho  (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But when we talk about power (of engine/vehicle), we're talking about max. power available, aren't we? North wiki (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The section under Criticism citing CNW's report that the Hummer has a lower lifetime energy cost than the Prius is based on a widely debunked study. It should be removed. See CNW_Marketing_Research for more information.--Warpshock (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If we remove it then somebody will find the report through other methods (apparently it was propagated widely) and treat it as gospel. Another editor might also add it back in without the debunking. At least now we can explicitly say that it is debunked. I would keep the report and its debunking in.  Stepho  (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if the lifetime energy cost is not lower than that for a hummer, the energy cost of the prius is high, especially when compared with modern diesels etc. In addition to this, valuable resources such as lithium and niobium are used in its production. 30/05/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.212.111 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Brake fix and acceleration

This sub section is out of proportion to the rest of the 30 series section and fast becoming a duplicate of 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls‎. I propose that we delete the bulk of it and replace it with a

Main article: 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls

link and a very short summary (one paragraph with 3 or 4 sentences at most). 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls has all the gritty details, so nobody will be missing out on anything and we can keep the Prius article much smaller and cleaner.  Stepho  (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the brake section, plus the cruise control section, is largely a duplicate of the related sections at the recall article. Exception being the recent alleged runaway Prius hoax story (last paragraph), that can be moved there or kept here or deleted, not sure. MTan355 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Present Tense

Much of the article's information on new models was written in the present tense, which ensured future editors would have to re-write much of it. I suggest writing in more permanent historical style. (I cannot find any clear guide or discussion on the current Style pages)

Mydogtrouble (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please fix

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I made an edit to this article but something happened and now the page says 'Cite error' and 'see the help page' in big red text. I don't know what I did, but could an expert in HTML code please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacJ71 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how you managed it but some of the references had a space or slash changed to %25252F. %25 means the next two digits are the ASCII code number for a character - allowing special characters to be enter. %25 stands for '%', so %2525 also stands for '%', so %25252f stands for '/'. Weird. Anyway, its fixed now.  Stepho  (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad conversion

"December 2005: Edmunds.com test of the Prius and Civic Hybrid resulted in the Prius outperforming its competitor by an additional 4.5 mpg-US (52 L/100 km; 5.4 mpg-imp) at 48.3 mpg-US (4.87 L/100 km; 58.0 mpg-imp)."

This line is utter nonsense. 4.5 mpg does correspond to 52 L/100km, but an extra 4.5 mpg isn't a saving of 52 L/100km. I ran the numbers and the difference is 0.63 L/100km, but it's automatically converted in the article, how can this be fixed? Middlerun (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cutting down sections.

As noted, the Prius article is too long, so I have created a beta version of a stripped down article, along with a beta version of a new article that splits and details the history of the Prius. Please review the articles, give feedback, and help improve the articles. I have cut some things out, from both articles completely. If you want an explanation please ask me. If all is good, then I will make changes to the Prius article, and start the new page. History of Toyota Prius, Toyota Prius.

L Kensington (talk • contribs) 09:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long and needs dividing up, and even that History could be a separate article. However, I don't think that much of what you've put in the new article is history, and there is plenty of history left in your new main article.

I think a better split would be by Generation.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with de Facto, the proposed History split is not such. See an example of a split history section here.-- Mariordo (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another submission, this time, the Prius article has been split by generation, and I have further cut down on sections. Toyota Prius (ZVW30), Toyota Prius (NHW20), Toyota Prius (NHW10), Toyota Prius. If it is still too long, (the main article would be 51kb) then would it be appropriate to separate the article further into "Claims of the Toyota Prius" which would include Fuel Consumption, CO2, Criticisms, and everything else that can be put there? L Kensington (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it is more useful that way. There is still stuff in the new main article though which should be put in the generation article that it relates to, the fuel consumption data and specific criticisms for instance. -- de Facto (talk). 22:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved the Fuel consumption to their respective articles, but for the NHW10 article, I only added what the US government put, because I cannot find other sources for the 1st generation prius from the UK. I removed air pollution, and sent it off to the individual articles. I also wasn't sure on this, but I re-added the independent fuel tests to the individual articles. As for criticisms, the only one I could find that could be moved was the electric vehicle warning sound, which I moved partially to the ZVW30 article. I find that most of the other criticisms relate to the Prius in general. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the independent fuel economy comparisons were not moved but deleted.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the split into generations. The Toyota Corolla and Toyota Camry articles will be helpful as an example of how to split into generations. The new generation article names should be 'Toyota Prius XW10' (includes NHW10 and NHW11), 'Toyota Prius XW20' and 'Toyota Prius XW30'. Note that the engine code is not part of the platform code - see List of Toyota platforms to see how Toyota's platform naming convention works.

The 'Name' section can have all the Latin stuff deleted and then remaining one or two sentences shifted to somewhere in the intro.

A lot of the drive train info in the 'Design and technology' section duplicates Hybrid Synergy Drive. Cut it down to what is specific to the Prius and put in a link to Hybrid Synergy Drive.  Stepho  (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you review the following beta articles and give me feedback? Toyota Prius (XW30), Toyota Prius (XW20), Toyota Prius (XW10), Toyota Prius. I already did most of what you said. Except the naming conventions. It can be changed if you want. Also, how should it go for the XW10, since the NHW10 and 11 have some differences between them. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review the new articles for you (along with other editors, of course). The XW10 designates the series, while NHW10 and NHW11 are specific instances in that series. For the Corolla example, the E30 series covered many specific models like the KE30, KE31, KE35, TE30, TE35 - covering many engine and body combinations.  Stepho  (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I mentioned that the XW10 is divided into the NHW10 and its NHW11 counterpart in the article. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The new generation-specific articles are great. Here are some suggestions:

• Toyota Prius: summarise "planning and concept" into one sentence and combine this into the XW10 section. Then move this "planning and concept" content to the main XW10 article.
• XW10, XW20: remove the sales data from the individual generation articles. The sales data relates to the entire calendar year, yet the individual models were introduced mid-year (i.e. late 2003 for the XW20). Instead, have a single sales data table at the main "Toyota Prius" article.
• Toyota Prius: delete the awards section and move the awards won by each generation to their respective articles.
• There is a convention that states government fuel consumption figures (i.e. EPA, et cetera) can be included, but "there should be no mention of independent tests". The reason for this convention is because fuel economy is subjective, and the EPA rating is ascertained via a methodical process, unlike independent test results. The current list of independent results is quite unsightly and never seems to stop growing. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay done. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It would probably be safe to move the articles over to the main space now. I don't think anyone objects to the article being split up. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your help. The changes are now live. Thanks again. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent fuel economy tests

where exactly did the independent fuel economy testing data go? Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This information is un-encyclopaedic: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this information is subjective in style and does not meet Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view.

There is a convention that states government fuel consumption figures (i.e. EPA, et cetera) can be included, but "there should be no mention of independent tests". The reason for this convention is because fuel economy is subjective, and the EPA rating is ascertained via a methodical process, unlike independent test results. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how was this fuel economy rule come into existance? I ask because it appears this rule was recently established by you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions&diff=372585064&oldid=372583199

Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore other articles such as the Chevrolet Volt include a test drive section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Test_drives ) which includes independently tested fuel economy data.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What the Chevrolet Volt article includes is irrelevant; the information is un-encyclopaedic. However, you are more than welcome to create your own website with this content if you like.

While it is true that the convention was formalised by me, it had been unwritten for a few years now. There was a discussion to formalise the convention.

I'll explain once more why the convention exists. If you and I both took an identical car for a test drive, it is highly unlikely that the same fuel consumption figure will be attained due to differences in traffic, gradients, terrain, driving style, et cetera. So you cannot compare the Car and Driver figure for the Prius to the Edmunds figure for the Honda Insight. At least with the EPA, all vehicles are tested using exactly the same protocols (making comparisons more reasonable).

Likewise, we only list the official top speed and 0–100 km/h (or 0–60 mph) times, and not those attained by Car and Driver, et al. It is all about reducing clutter, keeping it simple, and not ruining articles by flooding them with indiscriminate particulars. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You can in actuality compare the C&D Prius and Insight fuel economy as they were both tested under identical conditions.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No you can't. Identical conditions means: same driver, same traffic, same route, same amount of time waiting at traffic lights, same number of people cutting in front of you forcing you to brake hard, et cetera. When people drive their car to work each day at the same times, to the same place, they don't get the same figure each day. Why? Because there are subtle differences each time that vary the result. The only tests that can be considered "identical" car those done by the EPA (and other government departments) as these tests are done under a computer-controlled environment with no variables (car manufacturers can predict with almost 100 percent accuracy what MPG rating their car will receive because of this). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel this needs further discussion, this will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles where the policy decisions are made. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this type of recommendations made by the group of users who belong to any WikiProject are just guidelines, not Wiki policy as you claim.-Mariordo (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well a consensus exists not to include them, maybe a new discussion should be initiated at WP:CARS?

Originally, we said no fuel economy information should be included at all. However, I managed to get a consensus for a compromise allowing EPA figures. I think this is a good compromise, and am more than happy for EPA figures to be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New section to replace "Criticisms"

I have reworked the criticisms section a bit, but I think a more should be done. I think ideally we should have a "receptio"n section that details both the praise and criticism section. As it stands I don't think this article meets WP:NPOV the Prius has received a great deal of praise from a broad spectrum of sources that isn't particularly well reflected, as a good portion of the article focus on criticism and responses to it. It certainly has been criticized and I don't support any kind of white washing, but I think it would be good to gather other sources and determine what kind of weight we should give to various praise and criticism. --Daniel 22:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This type of laundry list criticism section often develop on articles about current events as new items become available, but I think at this point we would be ready to write a prose section on the vehicle's reception rather than a list gripes. --Daniel 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

EMP

When this section was first entered, I was very tempted to just delete it. But I followed the references, cleaned up the sensationalist bits and decided to let it stay. I don't necessarily agree with what it says (especially since I'm a Toyota fanboy) and my gut feeling is that it will fizzle out as nothing to worry about but the section follows all the wikipedia rules and should be allowed to stay.  Stepho  (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources are of poor quality, information is not notable.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A simple search in google for "Prius electromagnetic radiation" turns up little on the topic other than some chatter on forums. Hardly wikipedia material.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fully agree with Stepho-wrs, it fullfills Wiki policies, the NYT article is quite comprehensive and this is well accepted reliable source in the Wiki community, and even if it reflects a minority concern, this POV is also allowed by Wiki rules, so in fairness and for the sake of NPOV, I agree we must keep this section.-Mariordo (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether to believe it or not, but it is cited and does seem notable in the sense that there may be a risk associated with this vehicle. The same goes for the recalls; no one really knows if some Toyota models have a tendency to accelerate unintentionally or whether this is just driver error and the media doing its job of cutting down the tall poppies. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The section in question:

The Prius has been known to emit excessively high electromagnetic fields. ICNIRP guidelines stipulate that the maximum long term exposure should not exceed 1mG but the Prius measures higher than 24mG in some locations, such as the rear right seat. ICNIRP guidelines are not law in many (if any) countries. The World Health Organization in conjunction with the ICNIRP conducted a study and found levels above 3mG contribute to a child's risk of developing leukemia. At 12mG, the electromagnetic radiation is so strong it's able to block the body's ability to inhibit cancers (in this case breast cancer) using melatonin. The Toyota Prius exceeds 12mG (up to 24mG) in some areas of the cabin. However Toyota claims that the Prius emits similar fields to conventional gasoline vehicles. The high voltage power cable from the traction battery and the forward electric drive motor/generator passes directly under the drivers seat.

Only the NYT source is legitimate and barely mentions the Prius; it doesn't give any specific measured radiation figures either. One article from a reputable publication does not constitute this topic as notable. "At 12mG, the electromagnetic radiation is so strong it's able to block the body's ability to inhibit cancers (in this case breast cancer) using melatonin." "ICNIRP guidelines are not law in many (if any) countries. The World Health Organization in conjunction with the ICNIRP conducted a study and found levels above 3mG contribute to a child's risk of developing leukemia." Statements like these are pure original research as the sources make no mention of any hybrid vehicles. "The Toyota Prius exceeds 12mG (up to 24mG) in some areas of the cabin." This isn't published by NYT.Snakeyedcharmer (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Snakeyedcharmer, then please propose a wording based on the reliable sources only. I agree that bringing facts from sources not directly related to the Prius will be considered OR, however the NYT has enough material and it mentions the Prius, so there is enough material for a non OR content to be kept (including the rebuttal from Toyota).-Mariordo (talk)

To quote WHO on the matter "[O]n balance, the evidence [about magnetic fields being] related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal...." Thus, WHO found no evidence that EMF's in any band injure human health. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The "next-up" source is pretty shoddy: no mention of what frequency those measurements were made at, poor methodology, lots of advocacy messaging, etc. Even then, it still finds that the Prius is below the ICNIRP guidelines. Many of the other pages/forum posts on the issue that I've seen suggest mis-use of meters by laypeople rather than actual data. http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/06/15/rpd.ncq168.abstract A paper in Radiation Protection Dosimetry suggests that aside from a brief spike when accelerating, the Prius is no different than a conventional car, and does not exceed the ICNIRP limits. I might suggest a wording that acknowledges the issue, common fear, etc., but tones it down in light of the evidence to date.

Also, ICNIRP limits are frequency-dependent, and I don't see any in the table that are 1 mG as currently in the article. http://www.icnirp.de/documents/LFgdl.pdf See page 827 for general public reference levels (or pg 828 for the graph) -- in the power-line-frequency range (I'm assuming what they're shooting for here), the limit is 2000 mG, not 1 mG. Potatophysics (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reword:

The Prius uses electric motors in the hybrid propulsion systems, powered by a high voltage battery in the rear of the car. There has been some public concern over the levels of electromagnetic field exposure within the cabin, and what health effects those may present, popularized by a 2008 New York Times article. However, Toyota and several independent studies have indicated that aside from a brief spike when accelerating, the electromagnetic fields within the Prius are no different than that of a conventional car, and do not exceed the ICNIRP exposure guidelines.

Need to figure out how to properly add the existing refs, and the new one I put above... Potatophysics (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just put undid another anon user's revert of this version, so I guess I have to say that I agree with it more than what was there before. 142.89.190.110 (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A reminder to both sides that while the EMP section is under discussion we should avoid major changes. Only minor corrections should be done. Major changes to the article at this time will only stir up trouble and cause a revert war. Instead, make proposals here on the talk page. Once we have reached agreement on the way forward, then that agreed direction will be applied.  Stepho  (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user has been adding the same information to the Honda Insight page, but with even more ridiculous claims and less referencing. After spending a bit of time researching, I can find almost no information that hasn't been published with the intent of drawing suspicion to hybrid cars. If the article is retained, it should be written about what is both newsworthy and reasonable (NYT & TTAC articles) and not about what some guy measured in his driveway with the AC EMF meter he doesn't know how to use. I removed the Insight section but if the consensus is to keep the Prius radiation section, we should make a new page for it and link it to both vehicle pages. Bdc101 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either EMP sections have any merit. This one has problems citing sources which directly contradict the assertion. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice a good number of people do not even know the subject at hand. Its EMF (Elecromagnetic Field) not Pulse. These edits by OSX are complete crap. They take out all relevant information toward the actual levels of EMF radiation exposure and what would be a serious risk. The change submitted by OSX should NOT be allowed. It does not even mention the amount of radiation exposure which is pegged as high as 24mG and by the article linked to in his revision an even higher 35mG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.232.119 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks directed at other editors. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC){{

But the previous version had incorrect ICNIRP levels, and mis-stated the conclusions of the WHO and ICNIRP about the evidence of magnetic fields and childhood leukemia (which, BTW, is for 50/60 Hz chronic exposures, not a direct comparison to the fields found in the car, to which one would only be exposed briefly while driving). The Radiation Protection Dosimetry paper references background work that the movement of the steel in tires can on its own produce up to 33 mG in cars with no hybrid systems travelling at 80 km/h (page 5 of the PDF, first paragraph under "hybrid cars" heading). I understand the need for this section: it is an area of controversy, and there is some measure of public concern. But there isn't really any good evidence that the fields in hybrid cars are meaningfully higher than conventional cars. Even if they are, it's then another leap to what the health effects of those fields might be. If the 173.x.x.x user feels more information on the field levels is needed, I think it would be more appropriate to include a sentence along the lines of: "During acceleration, the magnetic fields in the Prius were found to go as high as 35 mG, which compares to 33 mG found in conventional cars at highway speeds, and the ICNIRP limit (at the 12 Hz peak) of 4166 mG." Potatophysics (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The ICNIRP levels are correct and they state long term exposure should not exceed 2mG. Exposure is not "brief" it is for long periods of time as your car accelerates and decelerates. I was not able to find ANY ICNIRP guidelines stating a peak of 4166mG. You must provide an actual reference for that.

The reference is above: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/LFgdl.pdf see page 827, table 4 for general public reference levels. For the 12 Hz peak, the limit for general population is 5 x 10^-3/f Tesla, plug in 12 Hz for f, and you get 4.166 x 10^-4 T, or 4166 mG. That's the current ICNIRP guideline. a) Where are you getting the notion that the limit is that low? Please provide a citation. b) Please remember that ICNIRP (and other regulatory agency) limits are frequency-dependent. What frequency are you talking about? c) ICNIRP does not, as far as I can see, separate "long term" exposure from acute exposure in their guidelines. d) Even if they did, what makes you think that a long-term chronic guideline would be the appropriate measure for automotive exposure? The average time spent in a car is at most what, 2 hours/day in the US, and lower in other countries? But those hours would be broken up into several discrete chunks per day, and only a fraction of that is spent under hard acceleration or braking. Potatophysics (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just gave 173.206.232.119 a 24-hour block for the edit warring he's been doing on this page, as he's clearly not been willing to work out the issues here before reverting. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

173.206.232.119, could you please propose an alternative wording that is reliably sourced? The revision that you keep reverting to is not sourced reliably, and the sources given do not back up what is being claimed—many are simply included to give the allusion of citing reliable works. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to edit waring, any further editing of the EMP section by ANY editor will be reported to administrators and may result in blocking of that editor. And yes, this includes reversions and reversions of reversions (ie just because one side breaks the ban, it doesn't give you the right to also break the ban by reverting it back to its pre-ban state - I will report ANY edit. Form a consensus on this talk page and only AFTER a consensus has been formed will any edit be allowed. Even if you feel the current version is wrong, we will put up with it until consensus is reached.  Stepho  (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone except for 173.206.232.119 have any objection to deleting the section entirely? I haven't really seen one. Perhaps we could take Potatophysics's position on the matter, although that would require him re-writing the section himself. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said at the top, the claim has been raised in a publication, so it needs to be dealt with - even if simply to put in a paragraph that states the issue and then references the rebuttal. Personally I feel the claim is so much hogwash but my opinion here would be original research and also that of an amateur. Potatophysics seems to have a better grasp of the physics involved than me, so I'm inclined to follow him - as long as solid references back him up. But let's see if anyone else responds first with some coherent arguments.  Stepho  (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have had at least one person contact my real-life lab asking about this issue, and I've seen the debate in various internet forums as well. It is a concern amongst at least a minority of people, so I think it's worth a few lines in an article like this. So far it doesn't look like the fields in a hybrid like the Prius are meaningfully higher than in a comparable car (or than electric trains/subways which tonnes of people use in cities all over the world). Unfortunately there are some really bad articles out there, with people just picking up a meter they don't know how to use and reporting "a number" without really knowing what that number means, which has stirred up some controversy. The version that's up right now is pretty close to the one I drafted a few weeks ago, but if you want me to rewrite it again I'm happy to help, especially if there are some references I haven't seen. Potatophysics (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like our original vandal now has some additional IP addresses. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the section heading should be changed from "Electromagnetic (radiation) field levels" to either "Electromagnetic field levels" or "Electromagnetic radiation levels", since (to my knowledge) the most common terms for those things are "electromagnetic field" and "electromagnetic radiation". The presence of the word "radiation" suggests that we're talking about ionizing radiation; we're not. If there are no further comments, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "Electromagnetic field levels". —Tanner Swett (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing to "Electromagnetic field levels" sounds good to me. Unless there are are strenuous objections in the next 24 hours or so, then go for it.  Stepho  talk  08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Plural form?

The company is asking the public at large to vote on the most proper plural form. The choices are: Prien, Prii, Prium, Prius, or Priuses.

Anyway...

I'd like to ask if someone can keep an eye out and edit it (including current usage of the plural form) when necessary after all of the votes have been counted. In addition, please also edit the Prien disambiguation page too when needed. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

prii not plural

toyota did not officialize "prii" they are just trying to advertise for it, there are actually people severely against the thought, even toyota fans, well they dont have fans, agree its "priuses" plus, its not in the dictionary and nor is it a proper noun, nobody has agreed to that, they just are trying to advertise it,

(67.168.153.41 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Toyota USA seems to disagree with you. They have said "It comes with great honor to announce that the official plural of prius, as decided by the people, is prii!" (although you have to click on the "and the winner is...prii" to get to the text containing the word "official"). Not sure if we should be using all lowercase :) Toyota Japan has no mention of the word "Prii", so it might only be official in the US. And by the way, Prius isn't in the dictionary either - nor is Camry, Vitz, Platx, tC and most of the other names used in the current Toyota range.  Stepho  (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's stupid too, but since the manufacturer invented the car and the name Prius, they do get to be the "official" authority on how to spell it. It doesn't make it make sense, but it is "official." Bdc101 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The correct plural seems to be Priuses (see here). Nevertheless, as Stepro-wrs pointed out, Toyota or any firm can made up any name, so if they decided to called it Prii, it is officially Prii. But Toyota is so inconsistent with the naming that let's wait and see if it sticks. Wikipedia should use the most common name.--Mariordo (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As a wikipedia user and former toyota employee, i honestly think that priuses are still the official plural though toyota has said otherwise, you dont see anyone saying "prii" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.153.41 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) (shifted from 'Plural form?' section to here by Stepho-wrs)

Sadly, "official" and "common usage" sometimes don't match. Even worse, sometimes "official" and "use by officials" doesn't match. But we'd love to see a reference with a higher precedence that the one I gave above.  Stepho  (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh quote unnecessary

The Limbaugh quote in this article is totally unnecessary. If he made some sort of point, that'd be one thing. But all he does is just insult liberals, calling them "suckers." He doesn't even bother to explain why he thinks liberals are "suckers." I'm unclear as to what this childish quote contributes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Most Talked About

The Toyota Prius is the most talked about green car on the internet (source). Does anyone want/not want this included in the Wiki?

King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

I wouldn't bother. It's a pretty obvious fact but not a particular useful one and one that may change anyway (fads come and go, the king of the hill soon goes to Boot Hill). We'd also need a solid reference (not Google counts), otherwise it's original research.  Stepho  talk  01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Common usage plural term

I've replaced the use of "Prii" with "Priuses", in all places in the article except in the discussion of Toyota's excercise over it. That is because "Priuses" remains the most prevalent word in common English usage for the plural. According to a search on The Corpus Of Contempory American English, "Priuses" appears 36-times more frequently than "Prii". Wiki should reflect the common usage - and not necessarily the marketing people's preferred usage. -- de Facto (talk). 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First, please read #prii not plural above.

Toyota get to choose the name of their own vehicle. They made up the completely new word 'Prius' - presumably so that it could be copyrighted. They also get to choose the plural form of their own made up word for their own vehicle. They had a competion for the public to choose the plural form and the public choose 'Prii'. Toyota have accepted that choice and have officially declared 'Prii' to be the plural form. People don't always use the correct form (dealers also making the mistake) but that doesn't mean we need to deviate from the official form. Also, even before the official form was released, people would use inconsistent forms like Prius', Prius's, Priuses and many others.  Stepho  talk  09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the previous discussion - and there's no convincing reason there to mandate the adoption of Toyota's "official" word rather than the word that is most commonly used in the real-world. Toyota may choose their product names, but they do not control how those names are pluralised in common usage . Wikipedia should reflect reality, not the PR people's whim. We can add the details of the competition to the article (as indeed we have), but we shouldn't take the outcome too seriously. If "Prii" ever becomes more popular in Enlish usage than "Priuses", then will be the time to discuss using it in Wikipedia - but not before. -- de Facto (talk). 10:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Common usage can be wrong in many things - is the Earth flat or does the sun revolve around the Earth? If the correct name is known then it should be used.  Stepho  talk  11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

within popular culture

I imagine the Prius has been mention dozens of times in movies, tv, books etc, i've added a little on the end of the Political Symbolism bit but i'm sure if we can find out more times it can have its own section.Megatonman (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of reasons can be imagined. That people wish to be identified with the green movement may well be true but we need a reliable and unbiased reference that says so.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Megatonman, please be careful to review the applicable WP policies and guidelines regarding Trivia sections (In Popular Culture, etc.) and discuss before adding it. Trivia sections tend to become a morass of useless crap that has little relevance or notability and really isn't encyclopedic. If the popular culture stuff needs to be in the article, preference is to put it into the mainline text, not in a separate section. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@UncleBubba, it is considered bad form and also confusing to delete something while it is under discussion. While I personally think this section won't stay (for the reasons you gave), it is possible that Megatonman may have some quite solid references to back up what he says. That small section was harmless enough to stay for a few days while we discussed it. Its ultimate fate should have happened after the discussion. That being said, Megaton should come up with some references before adding it back in (sections flipping in and out on a daily basis make me dizzy).  Stepho  talk  04:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not considered bad form at all--read WP:BRD or any number of references to "unsourced changes" written by several people, including the founder of Wikipedia. When someone puts questionable "information" into an article, it should be removed unless it can be sourced.

And, even if it can be sourced, it doesn't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article, one line of reasoning being "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.". If someone adds something like "Pundits call the Prius 'the tree-hugger's apology' car", without citing a reliable source, it gets pulled. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Two exerts from WP:BRD stand out for me.

1. 'Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.' The discussion has barely begun, so the premise of BRD hasn't really been matched.
2. 'BRD is not a policy.'

But let Megatonman do some research. He might or might not find something worthy of inclusion. If not, then we can always delete it (or in this case, not re-add it) in a couple of days.  Stepho  talk  07:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, so long as the challenged text is not reinserted into the article unless properly sourced. If, however, anyone tries to add a Trivia (In Popular Culture, etc.) section to this article--as opposed to integrating the info into the text, I will be taking a long, hard look at it for notability and encyclopedic merit, and so should you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think it may be worth mentioning, its a famous and iconic car and for a specific reason, it's brought up in many ways shapes and forms on TV, i'll do some more research and get back to you guys. It's a part in many show plotlines including southpark, but i do realise if it isn't done well, it could be and endless babble of useless junk, i'll look it up. Megatonman (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a good read of WP:HTRIVIA. The main thrust is that what goes into the article must be important for the car, not what is important for the movie. Ie: the Prius might be important within the movie but the appearance may not be particularly important beyond the movie. Exceptions would be for a movie that changed world opinion on green cars - but I haven't heard of such a movie.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Self-Driving Prius

Should a section including this be added, or should we wait for the technology to develop and become more widespread? Youtube Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE David1544 (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article about this subject, see Google driverless car. Please note that not necessarily the car where the system is installed has to be a Prius, and in testing Google has actually used other car models.--Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that. Thanks. David1544 (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Smog Production

I have read many articles that use the word emissions while trying to describe only CO2 emissions. Should Wikipedia speak of the mediocrity of the first generation prius with respect to smog 'emissions?' The first generation is classified as ULEV along with the Ford Crown Victoria (V8), Ford Mustang (V6), Mercedes-Benz CL500 (V8), and many many others of mediocre results. In perspective, the 2005 Ferrari F430 produces less than half the smog per mile. (epa.gov/greenvehicles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.64 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you read or what you know; the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. When you edit an article, just below the edit window is a link to WP:V. Please take a look at it.

Regarding the subject, as I told you on my Talk page, cars do not emit "smog". Smog (from smoke and fog) is a meteorological phenomenon caused by the combination of emitted gases and liquid particles in the atmosphere. Smog may be made worse by photochemical reactions brought on by sunlight acting on various compounds (mainly hydrocarbons) in the emissions. Ergo, cars may emit smoke, NO, CO, CO2, particulates, etc., but they do not emit smog.

Should we include verbiage on "the mediocrity of the first-gen Prius"? If you believe your conclusion to be notable and can find a reliable source for the claim, perhaps. I, personally, don't think it belongs here. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As emission standard progress, vehicles produce less and less smog-forming pollutants. It would not surprise me for a 2005 Ferrari to produce less pollutants than a first generation Prius of 2001. I think, it is not fair to conclude that the first generation Prius is mediocre in pollution control because a 2005 Ferrari produces less pollutants.---North wiki (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My car isn't passing 'smog' right now. Wheather cars produce smog or they make the stuff to make smog that is a matter of semantics. i think this is very important. people want to know what is good for the environment and www.epa.gov/greenvehicles answered a lot of my questions. This is a very appropriate topic for any envoromental car page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.154.98 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about what I think you are, you're not having trouble with "smog", your car is failing its emission inspection. There is a difference, and it's important, and it's actually a matter of physics and chemistry, not semantics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, and it has rules and guidelines. Sorry if you don't agree with them, but don't blame me—I didn't write them, but I do try to follow them to the best of my ability. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

More details of Prius engine?

There should be a bit more information about the Prius engine in the articles, such as whether it uses multiport fuel injection or direct injection, the compression ratio and whether it is an Atkinson (rotary) or Miller (piston) cycle engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is just an overview article. Specifications of each generation can be found at Toyota Prius (XW10), Toyota Prius (XW20) and Toyota Prius (XW30). You can see sections in this article say something similar to 'Main article: Toyota Prius (XW10)' - just click on the link. Each of those articles point to articles that give specifics of the engines - eg the XW30 article points to the 2ZR-FXE engine. It makes more sense to put the engine info in a separate article because multiple cars share that engine and its hard work writing/updating the same info multiple times. However, this article and each of the generation articles do say that it uses the Atkinson cycle.  Stepho  talk  08:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, Atkinson-cycle engines are not rotary. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 11:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the Atkinson cycle can be used on both piston and rotary engines. Same for the Miller cycle.  Stepho  talk  20:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but they aren't--at least not in mainstream engines at this point in time. The Wankel/NSU rotary (the most-produced, thus far) doesn't lend itself to easy implementation of the variable-stroke or -timing architecture required for successful Atkinson-cycle operation. Not to put too fine a point on it, but my reply was to the OP, not in response to anything you said. He said, "Atkinson (rotary) or Miller (piston)" and it just t'ain't true. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Mo problem, I thought you were talking about Atkinson engines in general. Agreed that Toyota only use the Atkinson cycle in piston engines.  Stepho  talk  05:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Political symbolism

re: "the vehicle carries an image as being a car for politically left-wing environmentalists." Says who, exactly? Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh also believes Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster and that Obama's birth certificate is fake. So I really wonder why his words are considered important enough to include in this article. I thought this was supposed to be Wikipedia, not some extreme, nut-case far-right blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. That content was not supported by a reliable source, and by Wikipedia policies it is considered original research. I expanded a bit on the content actually supported by the existing source in that paragraph. Nevertheless, please be aware that because we have to keep a NPOV, and that section contains valid criticism/controversy surrounding the political image of the Prius.--Mariordo (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Specs

We need specs on these models, particularly weights. All cars should have curb weight 85.83.19.103 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a simple overview article. Details such as curb weight are in the individual articles for each model, such as Toyota Prius (XW10), Toyota Prius (XW20), Toyota Prius (XW30), Toyota Prius v and Toyota Prius c.  Stepho  talk  00:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)